The Mail vs Benefits

mojojojo · **Joined:** Fri Mar 19, 2010 1:33 pm **Posts:** 4305

There's no need to have any children. Doesn't mean it's wrong.

visage · **Joined:** Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:05 pm **Posts:** 308

mojojojo wrote:

There's no need to have any children. Doesn't mean it's wrong.

No, but if you have kids while expecting the state to pay for their upbringing then that is wrong. Its like me buying a sportcar and then asking the government to pay for the running costs when I find I cant afford them.

I dont know what the answer is, though.

Althea · **Posted:** Wed Feb 29, 2012 11:20 am

Think of it as an investment. 9/10 adults in the work force

Fflaps · **Posted:** Wed Feb 29, 2012 11:25 am

And with so many jobs available too!

On the other hand, no matter how many kids they have, they shouldn't have to live in a damp mouldy house, not that most of the comments give a toss about that.

mojojojo · **Joined:** Fri Mar 19, 2010 1:33 pm **Posts:** 4305

visage wrote:

mojojojo wrote:

There's no need to have any children. Doesn't mean it's wrong.

No, but if you have kids while expecting the state to pay for their upbringing then that is wrong. Its like me buying a sportcar and then asking the government to pay for the running costs when I find I cant afford them.

I dont know what the answer is, though.

If I lose my job (which th DM would love me to as it's in the public sector), I'll expect the state to help towards my son's upbringing - is that wrong? Would it be wrong if I had ten sons? Or would it be okay but I shouldn't breed anymore until I'm working again?

visage · **Joined:** Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:05 pm **Posts:** 308

Fflaps wrote:

And with so many jobs available too!

On the other hand, no matter how many kids they have, they shouldn't have to live in a damp mouldy house, not that most of the comments give a toss about that.

I agree that, for this family, its too late - the welfare system should of course help them - its not the kids fault, is it?

Im just wondering how we can avoid getting into the situation in the first place.

visage · **Joined:** Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:05 pm **Posts:** 308

mojojojo wrote:

visage wrote:

mojojojo wrote:

There's no need to have any children. Doesn't mean it's wrong.

No, but if you have kids while expecting the state to pay for their upbringing then that is wrong. Its like me buying a sportcar and then asking the government to pay for the running costs when I find I cant afford them.

I dont know what the answer is, though.

If I lose my job (which th DM would love me to as it's in the public sector), I'll expect the state to help towards my son's upbringing - is that wrong? Would it be wrong if I had ten sons? Or would it be okay but I shouldn't breed anymore until I'm working again?

In order, no, no, yes.

Althea · **Posted:** Wed Feb 29, 2012 11:31 am

visage wrote:

Im just wondering how we can avoid getting into the situation in the first place.

Well, nothing, really.

The future of the parents is a little worrying, though. By the time the kids have become adults, she'll be 60. He - and he's only her boyfriend - is on about £12k a year according to the DM. What's a concern in my mind is that unless the kids look after each other in the coming years, they're going to have no money stashed away for a pension, rainy days and so forth.

lord_kobel · **Posted:** Wed Feb 29, 2012 11:58 am

visage wrote:

Im just wondering how we can avoid getting into the situation in the first place.

Contraceptives in alchopops...

mojojojo · **Joined:** Fri Mar 19, 2010 1:33 pm **Posts:** 4305

visage wrote:

In order, no, no, yes.

Why yes? Should there be some sort of wealth bar that people need to reach before they can breed?

Arnold · **Posted:** Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:28 pm

mojojojo wrote:

Why yes? Should there be some sort of wealth bar that people need to reach before they can breed?

Nobody is saying that, but 10 is OTT, and possibly unfair on the kids. How can the parents give them all the attention that children need?

Althea · **Posted:** Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:38 pm

mojojojo wrote:

Why yes? Should there be some sort of wealth bar that people need to reach before they can breed?

I think it's more about being able to be financially secure and to be able to support yourself, your partner (if you have one) and your child/children. It's less about "wealth" and more about being responsible in your ability to provide and support, I'd guess.

Big Rob · **Posted:** Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:40 pm

ezinra wrote:

Sadly, people — especially desperate people — are still under the illusion that contacting your local paper is a way to get something done. Mrs/Miss Heaton (the Mail can't decide) probably got fed up living in a damp, unhealthy house and thought she could draw attention to the problem via the media. The local rag then appears to have sold the story to an agency (Cavendish Press, source of the photos), which in turn must have pitched it to the Mail. I see it's been covered by the Sun and the Express, too.

Ahh okay...

I would like to see what the local paper/agency did to make this family aware of their activities.

visage · **Joined:** Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:05 pm **Posts:** 308

Althea wrote:

mojojojo wrote:

Why yes? Should there be some sort of wealth bar that people need to reach before they can breed?

I think it's more about being able to be financially secure and to be able to support yourself, your partner (if you have one) and your child/children. It's less about "wealth" and more about being responsible in your ability to provide and support, I'd guess.

Yup - like with anything in life, its not unreasonable to say to people that they shouldnt willingly enter into a financial commitment that they cannot meet.

Of course your circumstances might change, and that what the welfare state is for, but to willingly have kids that you know you'll need state aid to support? Not on, IMHO.

storygirl · **Posted:** Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:58 pm

visage wrote:

mojojojo wrote:

There's no need to have any children. Doesn't mean it's wrong.

No, but if you have kids while expecting the state to pay for their upbringing then that is wrong. Its like me buying a sportcar and then asking the government to pay for the running costs when I find I cant afford them.

I dont know what the answer is, though.

the answer isn't to condemn children to poverty because of the poor life choices of their parents, that is without even going into the fact peoples circumstances change. You might not expect the government to pay for your sports car, but if you loose your job then you do expect some form of state support to stop you starving to death.

Solutions were being started via programmes like sure start, raising ambition and expectations.

The Mail vs Benefits

Who is online